Employment Litigation - Page 7 of 17

Southwest Airlines Files Challenge to the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act

Southwest Airlines Co. has filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado challenging the application of the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act (HFWA) to its Colorado employees.

The complaint, which names Scott Moss in his capacity as the director of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment’s Division of Labor and Statistics, along with Philip J. Weiser in his capacity as the attorney general of Colorado, alleges that the application of the HFWA to Southwest employees is preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act and the federal Railway Labor Act, and that it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Continue reading “Southwest Airlines Files Challenge to the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act”

Supreme Court Decides Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a rule of California law insofar as it precludes agreeing to arbitrate only an employee’s individual claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Continue reading “Supreme Court Decides Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana”

California Supreme Court: Unpaid Meal and Rest Period Premiums Can Lead to Wage Statement and Waiting Time Penalties

On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court ruled in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. that unpaid meal and rest period premiums can form the basis of claims for wage statement violations under California Labor Code section 226 and waiting time penalties under California Labor Code section 203. This is yet another significant decision by the Supreme Court impacting California employers in California particularly since the Court overruled the Court of Appeal, which had held that meal and rest period premiums are not “wages” and therefore cannot lead to wage statement or waiting time penalties.

Background

California law generally requires that employers provide non-exempt employees a reasonable opportunity to take an unpaid, off-duty and uninterrupted meal period of at least 30 minutes before the end of their fifth hour of work, and a second meal period before the end of their tenth hour of work. Employers also generally must provide 10-minute uninterrupted, paid rest periods to non-exempt employees for every four hours worked (or major fraction thereof). If an employer does not provide a compliant meal or rest period, the employee in question is entitled to payment of one hour of wages at the employee’s regular rate of pay. That extra hour of pay is often referred to as a meal or rest period “premium.”

Continue reading “California Supreme Court: Unpaid Meal and Rest Period Premiums Can Lead to Wage Statement and Waiting Time Penalties”

Third Circuit Rejects Employer’s Attempt to Block Executive’s Move to Rival Despite Non-Compete Agreement

As we have written about previously, an increasing number of states, and Washington, D.C., have limited the circumstances under which employers can bind their employees to non-compete and similar agreements, particularly when low-wage workers (however defined) are involved. The courts, however, are not immune to the trend, as evidenced by the April 21, 2022 decision from the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ADP, Inc. v. Levin. In that case, the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against a senior executive who had resigned from his Chief Strategy Officer position at his prior employer, ADP, to take over the Chief Executive Officer position at rival Benefitfocus.

Continue reading “Third Circuit Rejects Employer’s Attempt to Block Executive’s Move to Rival Despite Non-Compete Agreement”

DOJ Remains Committed to Aggressive Antitrust Enforcement Against Employers and Their Employees Even in the Wake of Recent Trial Defeats

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) recently suffered significant losses in two criminal trials involving alleged criminal wage-fixing and related “no-poach” agreements by and between competitors. These were the first cases ever where the parties have proceeded to trial after the DOJ pursued criminal charges under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act predicated on such conduct. The Sherman Act includes penalties for criminal violations of the statute that can reach up to $100 million per violation for companies, and individual defendants can face $1 million fines and up to 10 years in prison. While the DOJ’s trial setbacks raise legitimate questions regarding the efficacy of its aggressive antitrust enforcement agenda — particularly in labor markets — the primary federal agency tasked with enforcing criminal violations of federal antitrust laws shows no signs of pulling back on similar investigations and prosecutions in the future.

Continue reading “DOJ Remains Committed to Aggressive Antitrust Enforcement Against Employers and Their Employees Even in the Wake of Recent Trial Defeats”

Massachusetts Employers Be Warned: Telling Employees “Your Wages are Coming, Your Wages are Coming” May Lead to Treble Damages

On April 4, 2022, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held, in Reuter v. City of Methuen, that employers are strictly liable for treble wages as liquidated damages if they fail to make timely payments upon an employee’s termination of employment in compliance with the Massachusetts Wage Act. With its holding, the Court rejected a longstanding trial court precedent that employers who failed to make timely wage payments were liable only for treble interest.

The Massachusetts Wage Act

Section 148 of the Massachusetts Wage Act requires employers to pay unpaid wages to any employee discharged from employment “in full on the day of [the employee’s] discharge.” Mass. Gen. L. C. 149 § 148. As an enforcement mechanism, the Act provides a private right of action for employees and mandates that employees who prevail on § 148 claims “shall be awarded treble damages, as liquidated damages, for any lost wages and other benefits and shall be awarded the costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” The Act specifically defines “wages” to include, among other things, “any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or written agreement.”

Continue reading “Massachusetts Employers Be Warned: Telling Employees “Your Wages are Coming, Your Wages are Coming” May Lead to Treble Damages”